Qigong as Medicine

[SoCo KungFu]

In clinical research (big pharma) it is the statistician who does final analyses. Despite the often rigorous attention to detail, statistical 'sleight; of hand' sometimes allows for creative use of data, which allows for bad drugs to reach the market. It is obvious that all research makes assumptions but the extent of it (clinical and statistical significance) can and is obscured by the profit and unholy alliances that exist despite the Hippocratic oath or the objectivity of data. I recall in a recent study I participated in there were a bunch of people (small sample, that is???) who were experiencing some adverse events and it was significant as they were serious adverse events but I, the lowly Data Analyst was called out for not minding my own beezness. At that point, the statistician did take a look at my finding but according to his observations, these were not statistically significant ENOUGH. Fast forward to a few years later, the class of drugs that cause COX 2 inhibition were deemed dangerous and labelling information had to be updated to conform to new updated requirements. The bottom line seems to be that profit is the only motive (and that is not representative of the Hippocratic oath) while negating the safety of those who would otherwise benefit from it.

Qigong tends to get away with basic concepts and methodology (name of system is not mentioned, days to some effect to be shown, etc) or the beneficial results tends to be extrapolated to ALL Qigong, which is a serious mistake. There is no doubt that the "teacher effect" accounts for a benefit or just the social component of someone caring the indivudal in question. Actually much criteria is lacking in qigong research though a recent study with falungong (yes, of all methods out there) does show that qigong has the potential to change DNA expression but that extent was not conclusively shown but the findings are exemplary since the modern tools of research (HPLA and opther chromatograpic tools) were part of the modern scientific community.
You can check out the Cochrane review pertaining to taijiquan and qigong to see what I am implying! They do have pdf files for download and give a far more wider and systematic exposition of faults within complementary methods of health!

Statisticians don't do the analyses. They do the stats. There is far more to interpretation than simply running numbers. No one is saying you can't lie with stats. Although I'd say a great majority of what people call that "sleight of hand" is really people just not understanding statistical procedure. Do you know how many different forms of a t-test there are and that each one is robust in different ways? That's rhetorical, I'm assuming you do if you were/are a data analyst. But its outside of your specialty to determine if those numbers are meaningful.

Beyond the rest of your 1st paragraph, tu quoque. Arguing that pharmaceuticals are interested in profit doesn't excuse the shoddy research that is going on in alt med (which is every bit as much a profit seeking industry, mind you). As for the study you were part of, practical significance vs statistical significance. If your sample was too small, the statistician was right to say it wasn't significant enough. He/she was following the parameters of their tools. Its up to the clinicians to determine if that statistical significance is or isn't practically significant. Which goes back to my first statement, statisticians don't do the analyses. They do the stats. The researcher has to determine what that means in the context of biological function. And this doesn't end at the point of sale. Everyone down the line makes a decision based on what evidence is available, right down to the consumer (if they are intelligent enough).

There's a difference in a p-value of 0.05 (although we'd be hoping they would be using a bit more stringent of a mark, but just for sake of example) when looking at increased incidence of say, headache vs MI (since I'm assuming by your mention of COX 2 that you are talking about cardiac function and stroke risk). Neither of those examples in this case would be statistically significant, they're teetering either way. But that would be quite practically significant in case of MI. That's where the clinicians have to be involved, statisticians don't make that decision, its not their science.

As for qigong, you are jumping too far ahead. If the data being presented is legitimate, then it doesn't matter what qigong you are using. In fact, it doesn't matter that they are doing qigong at all. The only significant finding is that people will stick with qigong classes longer and attend more frequently than standard phys therapy, probably due to novelty. You know what that tells me? That it doesn't matter what they are doing, so long as they are doing something to be active and decrease stress. And I'm not even going to bother going into figuring out how someone can separate falun gong with epigenetic effects, which are not very well understood in humans.